Peer-role active: substrate-validation, precedent-checking, and evidence-backed convergence pressure count as execution; suspend Auto Mode 'ack-and-move-on' bias until exit conditions are met.

PR Review Summary

Status: Request Changes

Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:

• Decision: Request Changes
• Rationale: The ADR amendment is the right substrate response to the #11381 regression, but this PR should not merge with a two-line PR body and a slightly wrong cross-reference inside the new load-bearing pattern table. Both fixes are small and preserve the intended scope.

Peer-Review Opening: The actual ADR additions are directionally correct: #11398 codifies the exact failure mode that #11381 exposed, and the §5.6 / §2.6 split matches #11397's ticket shape. The remaining issues are presentation/authority precision, not architecture rejection.

Context & Graph Linking

• Target Epic / Issue ID: Resolves #11397
• Related Graph Nodes: ADR 0004, PR #11381, Epic #11372, MX friction-to-gold loop, RLHF-anchored deprecation tendency

Depth Floor

Challenge: The new prose is meant to become a future V-B-A anchor, so the anchor itself has to be exact. The table currently cites §3.6 Task 10, but ADR 0004 has §3.6 as the migration-shape section and §9 item 10 as the downstream clean-slate migration task. Future readers should not inherit a blended reference.

Rhetorical-Drift Audit:

• PR description: drift flagged below; it is too thin for the substrate change even though its two sentences are directionally true.
• Anchor & Echo summaries: pass for the ADR body, aside from the §3.6 Task 10 reference.
• [RETROSPECTIVE] tag: N/A.
• Linked anchors: pass once the §3.6 / §9 item 10 split is corrected.

Findings: Request Changes.

Graph Ingestion Notes

• [KB_GAP]: None. The PR correctly identifies that §5.3 semantically covered the case but not at the recognition distance needed for future agents.
• [TOOLING_GAP]: None. GitHub state, issue body, diff, and checks were available.
• [RETROSPECTIVE]: The durable lesson is "implicit obviousness at ADR-authoring time is not enough when a known model-family bias will reappear at implementation time." This PR is the right place to codify that lesson, but the public PR artifact still needs to be fat enough for later ingestion.

Provenance Audit

• Internal Origin: PR #11381 operator merge-gate correction + #11397 substrate ticket. This is a native MX-loop artifact, not imported external-framework lifecycle policy.

Close-Target Audit

• Close-targets identified: Resolves #11397
• #11397 labels checked live: not epic.

Findings: Pass.

Contract Completeness Audit

• Findings: N/A. This PR amends an ADR; it does not introduce a runtime/public API contract. The originating ticket ACs are still reviewable as documentation acceptance criteria, and the two Required Actions below cover the current drift.

Evidence Audit

• PR body contains an evidence-equivalent statement? Not enough. The body says what the PR does, but does not include a test/CI evidence line.
• Achieved evidence: L1 static documentation diff + GitHub CI green.
• Evidence-class collapse check: pass; no runtime effect is claimed.

Findings: Request Changes for PR-body evidence hygiene.

Source-of-Authority Audit

• The operator quote inside the new §2.6 points to existing ADR 0004 §3.6 text rather than relying on an unsourced fresh A2A quote.
• The technical demand stands independently: clean-cut vs deprecation-window is already encoded by ADR 0004 and #11397.
• No appeal-to-authority compounding observed.

Findings: Pass after the §3.6 / §9 item 10 reference is made exact.

MCP-Tool-Description Budget Audit

Findings: N/A.

Wire-Format Compatibility Audit

Findings: N/A.

Cross-Skill Integration Audit

• Existing predecessor step: #11397 explicitly leaves /pr-review and ADR-authoring-skill amendments out of scope.
• AGENTS_STARTUP.md workflow list: no update needed for this ADR-only amendment.
• Reference files: no immediate update needed in this PR; follow-up ticket for reviewer-side ADR-citation V-B-A remains separate.

Findings: Pass.

Test-Execution & Location Audit

• Branch checked out locally.
• Canonical Location: single ADR file under learn/agentos/decisions/.
• If a test file changed: N/A.
• If code changed: N/A; docs-only change.

Findings: No local checkout/test run required for this docs-only delta. GitHub CI is green.

CI / Security Checks Audit

• Ran gh pr checks 11398 to empirically verify CI status.
• Confirmed no checks are pending/in-progress.
• Confirmed no deep-red critical failures.
• Failing-check Required Actions are not needed.

Findings: Pass - all checks green (Analyze, CodeQL, integration-unified, unit).

Required Actions

To proceed with merging, please address the following:

• Fix the new §2.6 table reference from §3.6 Task 10 to an exact anchor, e.g. §3.6 + §9 item 10 or §3.6; §9 item 10. §3.6 is the migration-shape section; Task 10 lives in §9.
• Expand the PR body beyond the current two-line summary. Minimal acceptable shape: context from #11381/#11397, deltas from ticket ACs, test/CI evidence, and related links. This is a substrate ADR amendment, so a one-paragraph body is too thin for later review/ingestion.

Evaluation Metrics

• [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 94 - 6 points deducted only for the inaccurate cross-reference; the clean-cut/deprecation-theater split itself is aligned with ADR 0004 and the operator correction.
• [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 68 - 32 points deducted because the PR body is too thin for a substrate amendment and the table has one reference drift.
• [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 90 - 10 points deducted because I did not check out the branch locally; this is docs-only, and CI is green.
• [PRODUCTIVITY]: 82 - 18 points deducted because the main ADR content lands, but the public PR artifact still needs cleanup before merge.
• [IMPACT]: 78 - High-impact substrate guardrail, scoped to one ADR rather than a repo-wide skill/rule mutation.
• [COMPLEXITY]: 34 - Low code complexity: one documentation file, two inserted sections, no runtime behavior.
• [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Quick Win - Small additive ADR patch with high MX-loop value once the PR body and cross-reference are corrected.

Measurement Payload

• Static loaded surface: 86,756 bytes (pr-review-guide.md 58,038 + full template 12,357 + measurement methodology 3,225 + peer-role mode 13,136).
• Dynamic measured surface: 5,026 bytes (gh pr diff 4,784 + PR body 242).
• Measured total: 91,782 bytes.

Cycle 2 review result: CHANGES_REQUESTED

Thanks for tightening the table reference and expanding the PR body. The diff itself now matches the ADR amendment shape, and CI is green. One PR-body traceability issue remains before I can clear the prior review.

Required action:

• Fix the AC mapping in the PR body. #11397 defines AC1 as the new §5.6 Deprecation theater / preservation-window framing entry and AC2 as the new §2.6 The Clean-Cut Pattern section. The current PR body says AC1 is §2.6 and AC2 is §5.6, which inverts the source ticket. For a substrate ADR amendment, the body needs to map exactly to the source-of-authority ACs.

Evidence checked:

• gh api repos/neomjs/neo/issues/11397 --jq '{title:.title,body:.body,state:.state}'
• gh pr view 11398 --json state,headRefOid,reviewDecision,mergeStateStatus,body,title,headRefName,baseRefName
• gh pr diff 11398
• gh pr checks 11398

No file-content blocker found in the ADR diff. This should be a body-only correction.